See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 36473
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-271) not displayed.
.
.
.
#272. To: bluedogtxn (#271)
I don't have to look at the thread. I am quite familiar with the sophism of this poster and his overall schtick. I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
Well, I found it both amusing and entertaining, as well as sad and pathetic. It also reaffirmed my belief in this site and what we talk about here, as well as cluing me in to a really great movie I watched over the lunch hour from Information Clearinghouse/Move On. Scrapper2 found it up above somewhere. Have a good weekend, Burkee.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I wasn't aware this wasn't an official tally. OK, if there is an official death tally of civilians in Iraq, what is it?
God is always good! There is no question that Iraq was still working on ballistic missiles. There's also no question that those missiles couldn't reach the US. So I bet if you quoted where Bush actually mentioned ballistic missiles he was referring to the former and not the latter.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html "President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, Remarks by the President on Iraq ... snip ... The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000205.html "Thus, the Prime Minister and the Government clearly believed that Saddam had had WMD and that he had been able to deploy them in a tactical and strategic way. We had never claimed in the Dossier that the 45-minutes had referred to ballistic missiles of this sort. The vast majority of media reporting after the publication of the Dossier had not made that link. This matter had not really featured until it had been made an issue in May. The Government believed that Saddam had had WMD and that he could deploy it. Irrespective of whether it was battlefield or strategic, it was a false distinction to say that if WMD was deployed in one way, it would not have the same effect if it was deployed in another. We were still talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Moreover, under UN Resolutions, Saddam should not have been able to possess any of this material in the first place." http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625031302.html " Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, told the Hutton inquiry via an audio link that the intelligence used in last September's dossier had been accurate and reliable. But the claim that Saddam could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes had been open to "misinterpretation" and, in hindsight, overemphasised. "The original report referred to chemical and biological munitions and that was taken to mean battlefield weapons," Sir Richard, known in MI6 as "C", said. "I think what subsequently happened to the reporting (was) it was taken that 45 minutes applied to weapons of a larger range than just battlefield." Use your browser. URL after URL says that Bush said Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. But I can't find a single one that claims he said missiles, much less missiles that could reach the US. Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
Strange. That doesn't mention missiles or using them to hit the US from Iraq.
He didn't actually say it, he implied it. He did say however that they could launch drone remote controlled planes over here to deliver a chemical/biological attack though.
God is always good! well aren't you the clever little slickyboy, knowing all these links by heart...
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
ROTFLOL! You're an open book. And you are under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to sway you. I'm not because I know that is hopeless. I'm just trying to keep the next poor soul who stumbles onto FD4UM and a thread like this from making the mistake of thinking truth is the goal of folks like you and the others at FD4UM. And I think they will all note that I've proven some very serious flaws in the study, bias in it's authors and blindness in its proponents. You don't like the commentary I've supplied so far? You don't want to read it? Suit yourself. Don't delude yourself into thinking folks haven't noticed the failure of ANYONE on this thread to address the points I made in post #123. Each one of them is valid and provable. Take, for instance, the study's estimate of pre-war mortality being dramatically different than previous studies ... bigger studies, in fact ... that the Lancet also blessed. And yet Les Roberts and the peer reviewers never addressed that. Take, for instance, the missing death certificates. The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths. Even the LATimes, who was undoubtedly trying to prove that huge numbers of Iraqis had been killed because they too are against the war, could not come up with more than 50,000. Even if the LATimes missed 2 or 3 times that number, there still are an awful lot of death certificates missing for the Hopkin's estimate to be remotely believable. Now you can stick your head in the ground. That's your privilege. But don't think readers (at least the readers I'm interested in reaching) won't notice. And by the way, I'm going to post even more URLS to sources that are critical of the John Hopkins/Lancet study. There are plenty that I still haven't linked. I'll do it as I respond to others on this thread. This time I think I'll actually quote the articles themselves. Perhaps if you won't go Mohammed, Mohammed can come to you. And maybe you'll notice there's a few statisticians amongst the authors of these criticisms. ROTFLOL!
Too cheap to subscribe? You want to know what the economist article said? Here: ********* http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814 ... snip ... The bedrock on which the study is founded is the same as that on which opinion polls are built: random sampling. ... snip ... The best sort of random sampling is one that picks individuals out directly. This is not possible in Iraq because no reliable census data exist. For this reason, Dr Roberts used a technique called clustering, which has been employed extensively in other situations where census data are lacking, such as studying infectious disease in poor countries. Clustering works by picking out a number of neighbourhoods at random—33 in this case—and then surveying all the individuals in that neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods were picked by choosing towns in Iraq at random (the chance that a town would be picked was proportional to its population) and then, in a given town, using GPS—the global positioning system—to select a neighbourhood at random within the town. Starting from the GPS-selected grid reference, the researchers then visited the nearest 30 households. ... snip ... They interviewed a total of 7,868 people in 988 households. But the relevant sample size for many purposes—for instance, measuring the uncertainty of the analysis—is 33, the number of clusters. That is because the data from individuals within a given cluster are highly correlated. Statistically, 33 is a relatively small sample (though it is the best that could be obtained by a small number of investigators in a country at war). That is the reason for the large range around the central value of 98,000, and is one reason why that figure might be wrong. ... snip ... **********
post #280, and what in the world is your point? that nobody's died in Iraq, except of natural causes? or people aren't really dead until a government (in this case, what government?) issues an official death certificate? I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what you're arguing for or against. Iraq is not a great place to be right now - can we all agree on that?
You could be insane, just based on the above statement alone. And I am one who is receptive to you arguments.
This is a REALLY good reference, Christine. Take note: http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009511.html "Frankly, I've been skeptical of the prior Lancet study for a long time given that a separate study, by the UN Development program, with a much larger, more reliable data set, found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4. The UN found after the first year that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level), which is approximately Check out that link, Christine. Might be an eyeopener.
So sending in more American troops is a good because...?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
No, the explanation is much more mundane, Fay. This debate has been going on for years with folks just like you and the Economist, like lots of journals, eventually moves material into archives that you have to pay to see. As the quotes I supplied prove, I did read the article. The early bird gets the worm.
So who pays you to post here?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
************** http://www.fumento.com/military/lancetscripps.html " Cluster sampling can be valid if it uses reliable data, rather than inherently unreliable self-reporting. But biased researchers, knowingly or unconsciously, can easily pre-determine outcomes by cherry-picking survey sites – like determining denture use in the general population by surveying only nursing homes. But medical researchers and their editors are above all that, especially at so prestigious a publication as The Lancet. Right? Never mind that Roberts admitted to the Associated Press that "I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea." Forget that Lancet editor Richard Horton told the BBC "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer," in Iraq, and that he proclaimed coalition efforts "a failure." Ignore that he said "the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts." Want more evidence the researchers knew their paper wasn't worthy of wrapping fish? The 100,000 figure is allegedly the excess over pre-war Iraqi mortality, which they claimed was 5.0 per 1,000 people annually. Not only is that far below the U.S. rate of 8.5 per 1,000, it's even below Saddam's own 2001 propagandist figure of 5.66! Consider, too, that 100,000 deaths during the survey period averages out to over 180 a day. Have you heard anyone even claim we killed anywhere near that number on one day, much less every day? The bad guys wouldn't even try to pull that off. They left it to The Lancet. Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. "These numbers seem to be inflated," due "to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post. The website http://www.iraqbodycount.com estimates about 14,000-16,000 deaths since the war began. The Evil One himself, bin Laden, in his pre-election video, made reference to the Iraq war and stated "over 15,000 of our people have been killed." How pathetic that a formerly great medical journal, in its desperate effort to out-propagandize both Saddam and bin Laden, is now just Al-Jazeera on the Thames. ****************
This statement by you: "Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies." clearly points the finger at the Bush administration. And my challenge to you is quote ANYONE in the Bush administration actually claiming that "Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes". More than likely it was said by someone on the left trying to create an issue ... just as it was the left who created the issue of Iraq being an "imminent" threat. The Bush administration never said that and Bush specifically said in his pre-war SOU speech that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat. No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL!
Maybe you'll like this one to bluedog. To bluedogtxn - *********** Here's a source with a good observation (just what I've been saying): According to the phony survey, they recorded 629 deaths since the start of the war (p4 of the PDF). In 545 cases, they bothered to ask for death certificates, and for those 545 requests, 501 times they were shown the death certificates. So Mr. Pittelli notes, at least 80% of all the deaths in the sample (501/629), and possibly as many as 92% (501/545) were recorded by the government. Let's repeat that: According to the anti-war propagandists who are responsible for this blatant dishonesty, 80 to 92% of all deaths in their sample were recorded in the Iraqi government's own official figures. What this means, as Pittelli points out, is that the official death figures should record at least 80% of the deaths since the Iraq war. Taking the bogus figures at face value, simply for the sake of To take the Johns Hopkins/Lancet figures seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of at least 80%, but then suppressed 85-94% of those recorded deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle on them. You also have to believe that 85-94% of the dead bodies were unnoticed by the MSM, the funeral homes, and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi govt. only issues death certificates for 6-15% of all deaths, but this random sample got 80% certificate hits by pure chance. Can you say bogus? **************
ROTFLOL! Did I deny that? I don't think so. And now that that is settled, that anyone can try to deny that Les Robert's studies are bogus is absurd. Here: ************** http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 The more I think about the Lancet article, the more obviously bogus the results are. The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths? Where are the news accounts of hundreds of days with 1000 deaths or more? This article claims that there are perhaps 100 Iraqis a day now being killed in sectarian violence--and this is described as escalating violence. This horrifying article talks about 65 bodies found around Baghdad--with the claim that the day was "notable in its number." Either the news media have been ignoring hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths--or tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths--or the Lancet article is utterly wrong. *********************
Actually, I think I've been providing a bit a clarity. Here's some more on the threads' topic: ************** http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 Well, the Lancet, the top British medical journal, has just published a paper claiming that we have caused the deaths of 2.5% of the population of Iraq: Short of setting up concentration camps, or intentionally spreading disease, or carpet bombing cities, I'm not sure that we could do that even if we were trying. There comes a point in every statistical study when you need to do a sanity check. ... snip ... Do you want to know how ridiculous this claim is? During World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries with a callous disregard for civilian losses. The euphemism was "strategic bombing," but it was terror bombing--by day and by night. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of this indiscriminate and indefensible use of bombing against civilian targets: So the Lancet wants us to believe that we have caused almost twice as many deaths without carpet bombing of cities, without creating firestorms like Dresden, without leaving vast rubble heaps where cities used to stand--and where our own compunctions, as well as world opinion, have prevented us from treating Iraqis as callously as British, American, and Russian air forces treated Germany? Give me a break. Japan suffered about two million deaths (about 2.7% of its total population), both military and civilian, over a period of six years. This includes 192,000 deaths from atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 100,000 killed in a single firebombing raid on Tokyo in 1945. And these liars want us to believe that we have caused a roughly comparable percentage of deaths of Iraqis over the last three years largely with firearms? *********************
Bogus. Your link doesn't lead to the article you idiot. Just like the bogus links you posted earlier today in "support" of your bullshit.
.
Well let's see if you can as readily dismiss this source (assuming you take the blinders off long enough to read it): ************* http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/lancet-strikes-again-i-admit-this.html Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician. ... snip ... Lancet Strikes Again: I admit, this headline caught my eye. 655,000 dead in Iraq is an impressive number. Then I read the first sentence and saw that the number was gathered by public health researchers and it lost some credibility. The American public health community has a decidedly left leaning cast to it. It is more politically homogenous than any other medical specialty. How homogenous are they? Well, you won't find statements like this on the website of any other medical speciality. One is obliged to assume that the researchers started with a bias. Then I read that it was published in The Lancet and I lost all interest. This is the journal that gave us the infamous MMR-causes-autism study and that published a similarly discredited tally of Iraqi casualities before the last American election. In the ranks of medical journals, I place them on a par with The Guardian. This time, however, the media is on to them: Kudos to the two New York Times reporters for taking the time to run the study by a couple of statisticians. Color the Washington Post skeptical, too: The full survey is here. The researchers spent two months canvassing households in various regions of Iraq asking about deaths in the family. Sometimes they were able to confirm the reports with death certificates, sometimes they weren't. They didn't ask if the dead were combatants or non-combatants. They were afraid to ask that question. Afraid for themselves and for those they were asking. They interviewed 40 households in each of their selected regions, then extrapolated the 600,000 figure from the number of deaths they had recorded in their interviews. The margin of error of +/-200,000 speaks for itself. It's not reliable. And sorry, but the defense that it's as soundly designed as can be expected for these kinds of public health surveys is a weak one. Retrospective, interview-based studies like this are poor designs. It may be the standard way of gathering data in the public health field, but that doesn't make it the best methodology, and it certainly doesn't make its statistics sound. For too long the field of public health has relied on these types of shoddy numbers to influence public policy, whether it's the number of people who die from second hand smoke or the number who die from eating the wrong kinds of cooking oils. But what do the Iraqi's think? Here's one who is particularly livid: UPDATE: From Dani in the comments section, the editor of The Lancet, expressing his opinion, to which he is certainly entitled. However, his obvious passion (is it necessary to shout when using a microphone?) casts more than a shadow of doubt on his ability to be unbiased in selecting articles for publication that cover the same topic. UPDATE II: The Lancet podcast defending the survey. UPDATE III: Much more via Tim Blair, including Lancet editor Richard Horton's assessment of peer review, the annals of The Lancet's various controversies, a statistician's analysis of the study, criticism from anti-war epidemiologists. UPDATE IV: More here. *******************
Beachy, let me ask you one simple question: What the hell is the point of posting a link if you know damn good and well that people are not going to be able to read the article at the link? Are you liar or just an idiot?
.
Why are you posting those kook blogs nobody has ever heard of? Do you think anyone is going to be impresseed? Who wrote that crap anyway? You or Fun Balls?
.
Bullshit. You posted dead links to decorate your spam. That is patently obvious. If the articles really suupported your argument, you would be waving the text in our faces and screaming for us to read them. Instead, you post a link offering to sell us a subscription to the magazine. LMFAO! You deliberately posted dead links to make it look like your kook bullshit had some sort of support.
.
Not a subscriber? Too bad. Didn't see it when it was free? Too bad. Lucky for you, you can go to the LATimes article which did the original investigation that the WSJ was reporting on. But they too have archived their article. You can read it from them (free) but you'll have to find it. Fortunately, that article is available elsewhere. Better hurry before it too gets archived. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20726 ROTFLOL!
Not a subscriber? Too bad. We must now decide if we take the utterly unsupported word of BAC, the infamous Ron Brown/UFO kook and the guy who just got kicked off LP for being a nut, or if we take the well documented ideas of Johns Hopkins University. Since BAC has already been dishonest with us regarding the dead links he posts in "support" of his articles, he already has one strike against him. I think I will go with Johns Hopkins University. I will however listen to BAC if and when he wants to tell us how Rob Brown was brought back to life. (But only if nothing serious is going on.)
.
BAC, Your spam-slam Psyops/disinformation tactic isn't going to be anymore effective than your lies and other forms of deceit. Deal with it!
He's busted dead on for his bogus link trick. It's hilarious watching him squirm. The guy really does have no shame.
.
I think that sociopathic angle is why the guy is such a failure. And such a laughing stock. He really doesn't see what other people think of him. He can't. That's what's missing in his personality. Because of that, he can't calibrate his actions to fit the situation. Hence, he flails around like he is right now and digs his hole deeper and deeper.
.
From the article, no more than 3 paragraphs down. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous."
Let me get this straight. What you are saying here is the article doesn't exist and you know it. And from this we can infer that you knowingly posted a bogus link in an attempt to fool us into believing your bullshit. On top of that, you say we should take your word at face value - for some odd reason. BAC, you really are a dishonest kook. Do you know that? Goldi showed surprisingly good judgment in giving you the bums rush. And BAC, stop focusing on that one link. There are a whole shitload of linkx up there where you did the exactly same thing. Deal with all of them or shut up about it. You're not going to wiggle out of this by jerking off with the one single instance that you might be able to deal with.
.
BAC's persistence is almost strange. He has to be here "...on paid assignment," as no one insane would suffer the treatment which he begs & receives. Historically, whatever he posts is unworthy of serious treatment, save for discounting, in terms of realizing what's impossible - versus his attempt at data-storming (spamming) and phase-shifting of nearly useless detail. BAC is obviously attempting to distract major intellectual/emotional energy. Giving him any lengthy attention or response is a self-inflicted wound.
Just curious. Do you want us out of Iraq NOW? An immediate pullout? I bet you do. If so, you should be ashamed of yourself given that most authorities seem to think that would lead to far greater chaos and death than is now occurring. This should be fun. So John Hopkins defends itself against criticism of its methods by repeating it used well-established and scientifically proven methods? I notice that they don't explain why their pre-war mortality estimate is so different from the mortality estimates from much larger UN and WHO studies ... that the Lancet also blessed as wonderful ... and which also used well-established and scientifically proven methods. And I don't see this source explaining why their results don't agree with this 2004 study by the UN Development program, with a larger and more reliable data set, that found after the first year there were one-fourth the number of excess deaths the Lancet found with their survey. They too used well-established and scientifically proven methods. Why did the John's Hopkins response ignore this? ROTFLOL! That's funny. Essentually they are saying the latest study is right because the results matched the first study. Never mind that they used the same researchers, the same American Hating Iraqi team, and the same methods. They still haven't explained why that 5.5 deaths per 1000 is so different than the numbers found in larger UN and WHO studies. And just where are all the bodies and death certificates corresponding to these 13.3 deaths per thousand? You are still ignoring that question. Yeah. Imagine that. We've killed a larger percentage of Iraq's population using precision guided munitions and infantry/armor than the Allies killed Germans ... back when they were carpet bombing cities with high explosives and incendiaries day and night till most German cities were nothing but ruins. (sarcasm) And as also pointed out ... that's almost as large a percent of the population as we killed in Japan (2.7 percent) in WW2. When again we fire-bombed and nuked cities till they were nothing but ruins. (sarcasm) This should be good too. ROTFLOL! Except Les Roberts methodology was more like one run by democRATS where they bias the sample by putting more democRATS in the mix than statistically exist in the population. My response to this defense by Roberts is to ask him why 92 percent of his sample claiming deaths was able to supply him a death certificate when the Iraqi population as a whole seems to have far fewer death certificates. Did he just randomly get a group that had 10 times as many folks with death certificates as the norm? ROTFLOL! Plausible? Then where is ANY hard evidence that so many have been killed? Why are there no death certificates, no bodies, no mass graves, no imagery of the slaughter, no media reports of the slaughter (not even by the insurgents who have demonstrated they know how to use video cameras)? Why is there NO evidence but the word of liberal researchers who admitted their bias against Bush and the war and their desire to influence an election, who employed Iraqis to do the interviews who they admit hate Americans, and who published their results in a Journal that has a track record of being critical of the US government and who also admitted wanting to influence the election against Bush? Did they ask which religious group they belonged to? Did they ask whether they supported Saddam's government? Did they ask whether they had members in the insurgency? Did they ask whether the person killed was an Saddam regime soldier or an insurgent? I think those are the sort of demographics Moore had in mind. Perhaps I'll have a bit more to say about him later in this thread. ROTFLOL! Still can't explain that binary sarin warhead, can you. You still can't tell us the contents of those truck convoys that went to Syria before the war ... under Iraqi military escort. You still can't tell us why Saddam's regime selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG said were related to WMD. You still can't tell us why Saddam didn't just come clean if he had no WMD or WMD programs.
It's just mental illness, and his obsessive behavior is probably one of the most common mental illnesses around. If you work with people in the courts - and probably in 12 Step Program too - you see people like him every single day. One of the reasons I retired was because I got tired of dealing with them.
.
BAC, you just posted a link to the main page of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. It has absolutely nothing to do with your argument -- you dumb fucking idiot.
.
BAC - That single Sarin warhead was declared to be a freak left-over, by the Pentagon! Your deceit attempts fail again (still).
*********** Iraqi Death Survey Part I I'm a statistics teacher, with only limited experience conducting surveys, and by no means a statistician, but, in perusing the new Iraqi Death Survey, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey" by by Bunham, et al, in the recent Lancet, I've come across several things that disturb me in the reports of data collected, the method of data collection and the method of extrapolation that I'd like to lay out in several posts, here. Then, perhaps, I can entice some people who know more than I do, or just think more clearly than I do, to look at these questions that I have, and address them, either supporting my concerns, or allaying them -- I don't much care which. I don't really have a horse in this race, after all. So, to the first, and probably most tenuous concerns, the matter of the believability of several items regarding the data collection. 1. "In 16 (0.9%) dwellings, residents were absent." When or where can you conduct a survey and find over 99% of the potential respondents at home? Especially in Iraq, where there are, according to NPR, two hundred thousand registered internally displaced persons (link), and an unknown, but presumably much higher, number of unregistered. So did the surveyors simply skip houses that looked "obviously vacant?" Assuming they did (and this would be a gross breach of statistical process, allowing one's own biases to influence which houses get sampled, but this happened anyway, see the next post; whether or not they did is hard to tell from the reported procedure -- "Empty houses or those that refused to participate were passed over until 40 households had been interviewed in all locations" -- are the "empty houses" the same as the ones reported above where "residents were absent," or does "residents were absent" refer to apparently occupied houses where they just didn't find anyone at home), it still seems amazing to find over 99% of potential respondents at home (and all the more so, since they apparently had to canvass throughout the day - see below.) (Further puzzling is the statement: "Households where all members were dead or had gone away were reported in only one cluster in Ninewa and these deaths are not included in this report." Does this mean that in only one cluster were any vacant houses encountered? I can find more than that in upscale suburbs of Minneapolis.) 2. Only "15 (0.8%) households refused to participate." Now this could be a sign that Iraqis are concerned to get the truth of their plight out, and that's great. But putting this together with (1) above, we find that in a remarkable 98%+ of the potential households, the head of household or spouse was available and willing to answer the questions (according to the methodology, those were the only ones surveyed.) And this result was achieved, according to the article, on the first pass, without ever re-contacting a household, which the survey teams deemed "too dangerous." 3. In reading the methodology, the impression is given that the surveyors did an incredibly thorough, careful, and considerate job in their work. Yet we read that the teams each consisted of four individuals, who "could typically complete a cluster of 40 households in 1 day." Now, it's not clear whether the teams stuck together, or split up into 1s or 2s, but, given time for travel, and assuming 8 hours of surveying time available in a day, if they worked in pairs (which would make the most sense, one male and one female), we find that they spent less than half an hour (24 minutes), on average, per household, yet we're assured that the following protocols were strictly observed: "The survey purpose was explained to the head of household or spouse, and oral consent was obtained. Participants were assured that no unique identifiers would be gathered. No incentives were provided. The survey listed current household members by sex, and asked who had lived in this household on January 1, 2002. The interviewers then asked about births, deaths, and in-migration and out-migration, and confirmed that the reported inflow and exit of residents explained the differences in composition between the start and end of the recall period. .... Deaths were recorded only if the decedent had lived in the household continuously for 3 months before the event. Additional probing was done to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths to the extent feasible, taking into account family sensitivities. At the conclusion of household interviews where deaths were reported, surveyors requested to see a copy of any death certificate and its presence was recorded. Where differences between the household account and the cause mentioned on the certificate existed, further discussions were sometimes needed to establish the primary cause of death." And further on, we read that official death certificates were produced for 80% of the deaths recorded, all in an average of less than half an hour per interview. I'll have a few more questions about these death certificates in another post. ************
Does Fun Balls write that notropis blog you posted above or do you? And why should we care what the fuck they think?
.
********* Iraqi Death Survey Part II In my first post, I simply mentioned 3 items that, from my own experience conducting surveys, seemed surprising, at best, or downright unbelievable, at worst, regarding the apparent success and efficiency of the survey teams. These questions did not address the methodology of the survey, they simply cast aspersions on the integrity of the survey teams. Quite simply, I find it particularily hard to believe that you can achieve a 98%+ response rate under conditions as difficult as those in Iraq (I've never gotten that kind of result in Minnesota), and that you can conduct the careful, thorough, sensitive surveys that the article implies it conducted, in what must average well under 1/2 hour per survey (at 40 per day, it would probably actually add up to less than 15 minutes per household of actual survey time.) But those are just skepticisms. In this post, I will bring up three problems that I find with the sampling methodology. In future posts I will look at some difficulties I find in the methods of extrapolation in the conclusions. 1. The second stage of the sampling is troubling: "At the second stage of sampling, the Governorate's constituent administrative units were listed by population or estimated population, and location(s) were selected randomly proportionate to population size." Why should this be troubling? Well, if a few hundred selections were made per Governorate it wouldn't be, but given the fact that in all but two governorates, 3 or fewer clusters were selected -in many cases only 1, the chances that any smaller towns (or administrative units) anywhere in Iraq might be selected are diminishingly small. It would be interesting to compare the number of small town or rural household clusters selected with the overall population of rural Iraqis to find out whether this underrepresentation were substantial, as I guess that it is. I don't have access to the raw data, so I can' t tell. 2. The sampling method used carries incredible inherent bias: "The third stage consisted of random selection of a main street within the administrative unit from a list of all main streets. A residential street was then randomly selected from a list of residential streets crossing the main street. On the residential street, houses were numbered and a start household was randomly selected. From this start household, the team proceeded to the adjacent residence until 40 households were surveyed." This may seem fine, and it would be, in suburban U.S. However, in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, and the chaos of many others living in temporary housing and the squalor of newly-constructed unofficial slums, none of these persons had any possibility of being surveyed. Neither did any who live on any unnamed or unrecognized streets. And again, it is quite possible that many smaller towns don't even have any officially named main street, so wouldn't show up on the list at all. What effect would this bias have? There's no way to know, but it is clearly a built-in bias, systematically selecting against some rather large demographic groups. 3. In addition, it is clear that at the whim of the interview team, these pre-selected sites could be changed: "Decisions on sampling sites were made by the field manager. The interview team were given the responsibility and authority to change to an alternate location if they perceived the level of insecurity or risk to be unacceptable." This is a clear admission of selection bias in the sampling. Given the sectarian tensions in Iraq, even granting the alleged professionalism of the canvassing teams, it is impossible to tell the impact of these biases, but their existence is unquestionable. The implication in the report is clearly that more deadly areas were underrepresented, but were more distant (possibly safe) areas also selected against because of the level of risk required to reach them? To summarize, then, the sampling methods reported systematically select against three groups (that I can think of): A) rural Iraqis (both in the method of selecting administrative units, and in the method of selecting particular streets) B) internally displaced refugees (since many live in camps, and not on named streets) and C) urban slum dwellers, who may often also not live in organized households on named streets. The fact that the previous survey, done via GPS location, mirrors the present one in the 2003-04 results merely indicates that, to the extent that the present method may be less representative than the previous one, the biases did not effect the death toll results from 2004; it says nothing about whether these biases are still unimportant. After all, the nature of the situation has changed significantly in Iraq; that's one of the main conclusions of the report. If the recent upsurge in violence has been predominantly urban rather than rural, these sampling methods might tend to overestimate the results. If it has been predominantly in the urban slums or refugee camps, the methods might underestimate them. There is simply no way to tell beyond educated guesses, which take us completely out of the realm of statistical science. In any event, these obvious biases are, in my view, important enough to raise serious doubts about the validity of the conclusions. More troubling, and carrying us way beyond anything that can be "fixed" by more statistical analysis, is the third point; namely, that in spite of the authors' best intentions to randomize the clusters, what they ended up with was, in point of fact, a sample with a high risk of personal selection bias. As understandable as concerns for safety are, statistics has no compassion. If you modify your selection based on personal considerations, you lose your claim to statistical validity. *************
Comments (313 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#273. To: Burkeman1 (#272)
I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
#274. To: BeAChooser (#180)
Actually, the OFFICIAL totals do not say 50,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#275. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#203)
It mentions ballistic missiles.
#276. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#206)
Diana, if you retract that claim, I'll find you and horsewhip you. There was nothing false about your claim. Bush said it, it's on tape, in front of the whole goddamn world.
#277. To: leveller, Diana, ALL (#209)
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
#278. To: BeAChooser (#276)
Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#279. To: BeAChooser (#276)
#280. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#216)
You are right in that I won't bother to read them.
#281. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#219)
you posted a link to an advertisement asking me to subscribe to the economist.
#282. To: BeAChooser (#280)
#283. To: BeAChooser (#280)
Take, for instance, the missing death certificates. The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths.
#284. To: christine, Morgana le Fay, Hayek Fan, ALL (#221)
BeAChooser Reference Database
lol
4x (BAC - he meant 1/4th) the number of excess deaths the Lancet found with their survey. Of course, the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set. (link) To me, the hallmark of a good study is if the results are able to be duplicated. The UN basically tried with respect to the first Lancet study and found the Lancet off by a factor of 4. I'd say that's probably how much this Lancet study is off by too..."
#285. To: BeAChooser (#284)
#286. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#224)
did you notice that he did a google search and then cut and pasted the articles as sources without opening them and reading them? it is on my last post.
#287. To: BeAChooser (#286)
#288. To: bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#227)
I liked having it around.
#289. To: Diana, ALL (#232)
I did not say specifically who said this as I didn't know.
I just know it was said on FOX and other media outlets to scare the American public into thinking we were under an immidiate threat of being hit by Saddam's super missles which he didn't have.
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#290. To: christine, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#237)
To bluedogtxn - he's on full status.
And I thank you for that status. To bluedogtxn - i'm thoroughly enjoying your posts to him.
argument entertainment, I calculate the estimates based on official figures should be between 314,000 and 867,000. They aren't. The "official figures estimate" is about 49,000.
#291. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, Hayek Fan, ALL (#242)
Diana - He was trying to play word tricks with me again, he was making my post mean something different, something he is expert at.
I was sure missles was said, that Saddam was going to shoot us with those missles that travel from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
I don't know if it was ever explicitly stated
That anyone can try to deny now that the administration was pimping the possibility of Saddam nuking us with missiles is such a palpable re-writing of history as to be absurd.
#292. To: christine, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#248)
bluedogtxn - That is some kind of talent, not sure what to call it though. I think the technically correct term is "obfuscation", although in my neck of the woods we call it "bullshitting".
Christine - LMBO
"We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire."
Official German statistics place total casualties from air attack -- including German civilians, foreigners, and members of the armed forces in cities that were being attacked -- at 250,253 killed for the period from January 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945, and 305,455 wounded badly enough to require hospitalization, during the period from October 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945. A careful examination of these data, together with checks against the records of individual cities that were attacked, indicates that they are too low. A revised estimate prepared by the Survey (which is also a minimum) places total casualties for the entire period of the war at 305,000 killed and 780,000 wounded.
#293. To: BeAChooser (#290)
(Edited)
Can you say bogus?
#294. To: christine, Hayek Fan, ALL (#257)
Hayek Fan - These other people could be hair stylists, political hacks or child molesters as far as I know.
christine - if they're male GOPers, you can probably count on it.
Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”
But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.
Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”
And neither does Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, which also tracks Iraqi deaths.
"I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off," he said.
Other research methods on the ground, like body counts, forensic analysis and taking eyewitness reports, have produced numbers only about one-tenth as high, he said. "I have a hard time seeing how all the direct evidence could be that far off ... therefore I think the survey data is probably what's wrong."
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes.
#295. To: BeAChooser (#290)
#296. To: BeAChooser (#294)
#297. To: BeAChooser (#286)
(Edited)
As the quotes I supplied prove, I did read the article.
#298. To: ..., ALL (#293)
Your link doesn't lead to the article you idiot.
#299. To: BeAChooser (#298)
(Edited)
Your link doesn't lead to the article you idiot.
#300. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#294)
#301. To: SKYDRIFTER (#300)
(Edited)
#302. To: SKYDRIFTER (#300)
(Edited)
#303. To: ..., BeAChooser (#295)
"There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate.
BAC, are Russia and Colombia more violent than Iraq?
#304. To: BeAChooser (#298)
(Edited)
But they too have archived their article.
#305. To: ..., Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#302)
#306. To: scrapper2, ALL (#262)
You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2 006.html
- The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations.
- The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey.
- According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003.
- This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war.
b. And here's a response by one of the John Hopkins researchers to the WSJ opinion piece that questioned the findings. It appears that Les Roberts had comments falsely attributed to him. Hmmm....
As a comparison, a 3,700-person survey is nearly 3 times larger than the average U.S. political survey that reports a margin of error of +/-3%.
Our study also produced a range of plausible values that reflect the margin of error in our estimate.
In addition, Mr. Moore claimed that the Hopkins study did not include any demographic data. The survey did collect demographic data, such as age and sex, related to violence, although they are not the same details Mr. Moore’s company would have collected for public opinion polls.
Gilbert Burnham
c. Also I'm putting you on notice that I will not address ever again your idiotic comments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that did not exist except in the fictious essays written by Doug Feith and his like minded IsraelFirster war mongering goons.
#307. To: SKYDRIFTER (#305)
BAC's persistence is almost strange. He has to be here "...on paid assignment," as no one insane would suffer the treatment which he begs & receives.
#308. To: BeAChooser (#306)
#309. To: ..., beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#306)
#310. To: Burkeman1, bluedogtxn, scrapper2, Hayek Fan, ALL (#272)
I don't have to look at the thread. I am quite familiar with the sophism of this poster and his overall schtick. I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
#311. To: BeAChooser (#310)
#312. To: bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, scrapper2, ALL (#273)
Well, I found it both amusing and entertaining, as well as sad and pathetic.
.
.
.